Looks very nice but the extremely short barrel makes me question it's usefulness. Being a 22 cal (also 22 mag) kinda limits it's usefulness to me at least. Any other opinions? If you haven't seen it I don't have a photo to post but think it's on the Heritage web site now.
donhov
That is for when they are so close that you don't have to aim , just point and you can't miss !
![Image]()
![]()
^^^ What Woody said. Anything beyond social distance and you're probably gonna miss, sights or not. Granted, 22LR is small, but I sure don't wanna get shot by one.
Having a Barkeep 3" I can live with the extraction, nothing difficult, just one more thing to keep up with. I really like the look from a picture without actually seeing one in hand but still kinda wondering. Think i saw retail $149 to 170 or so so cheap enough, just wondering of if it is practical. Don't think there is enough barrel for the mags though. As I said in aniother post, the magnums in my 3" cause quite a bit of fire & brimstone so I can only guess at how much of a flamethrower it should be with the mags in that 1" barrel.
Cute as a bug, but for personal protection in a small package, I'll stick with my 19oz Bond Arms derringer with only 2 rounds lying in wait to be fired. These two rounds would be either 45lc, 45acp, 357mag, 38spl, 4:10 disc/buck shell, or 10mm.
That said, once the price settles in, I may just pick one up because I can.
That said, once the price settles in, I may just pick one up because I can.
Sweet. Getting home must be an event I can't even imagine. If I'm in the garage for more than 5 minutes the dogs throw a party when I reappear. Sorry, they engage in "peaceful demonstration." 
My .22LR naa is loud enough. I don't know that I'd wanna expose my ears to my .22 mag model, though I carry it as back up figuring it's no worse than my primary...a 2" .357 magnum. 🤣
I never tested my NAA Hogleg with the chrono but I did test my Uberti Stallion.22/.22mag with Winchester SuperX .22lr advertised at 1300fps against some Federal .22 magnum advertised at 1850 fps. Both 40gr. From a 5.5” revolver, there was only 30-50 fps difference. I didn’t record the speed, just the difference. If memory serves, they were all between 800-900 fps. I should test my NAA, it has much less cylinder gap.
Colt did all kinds of variations like that with the Singer Action Army- not to mention what individuals or gunsmiths did.
The factory made ones that are too short for an ejector rod didn't even have a mounting point for one on the frame. Don't remember ever seeing one without a rear sight, though. No front sight is rare but seen (seen replacements made from dimes a couple of times), but never no rear. The missing front sight is usually somebody in current times thinking that the drag of the sight on the inside of the holster is "slowing them down" (when, in actuality, them being slow ain't got a thing to do with the gun). SAA's point naturally enough that sights are optional at reasonable ranges if you know how to point shoot, so its' presence is moot unless you are bullseye shooting for group.
Since the little .22's are basically a .22 knockoff of the SAA, I can see duplicating what Colt did in the 19th Century. The original Shopkeepers were meant for up close and personal, point and pull shooting over a bartop or store counter. You don't need sight when it's little more than arm's reach and they are just copying that look.
Basically, it's a new model to entice those that likd the look into buying another gun from them.
If it was a centerfire, it would be more of a Porter Rockwell-esque "Avenging Angel" (named after the Tom Berringer movie about Rockwell). Porter and his men cut down pistols (mostly open top Colts) for concealment while acting as Brigham Young's bodyguards. I've seen pics of everything from a Baby Dragoon to a Walker (that one looks wierd) chopped just in front of the loading lever mounting point- with '60 Armies and '51 Navies being the most common- that were done in the time period.
The factory made ones that are too short for an ejector rod didn't even have a mounting point for one on the frame. Don't remember ever seeing one without a rear sight, though. No front sight is rare but seen (seen replacements made from dimes a couple of times), but never no rear. The missing front sight is usually somebody in current times thinking that the drag of the sight on the inside of the holster is "slowing them down" (when, in actuality, them being slow ain't got a thing to do with the gun). SAA's point naturally enough that sights are optional at reasonable ranges if you know how to point shoot, so its' presence is moot unless you are bullseye shooting for group.
Since the little .22's are basically a .22 knockoff of the SAA, I can see duplicating what Colt did in the 19th Century. The original Shopkeepers were meant for up close and personal, point and pull shooting over a bartop or store counter. You don't need sight when it's little more than arm's reach and they are just copying that look.
Basically, it's a new model to entice those that likd the look into buying another gun from them.
If it was a centerfire, it would be more of a Porter Rockwell-esque "Avenging Angel" (named after the Tom Berringer movie about Rockwell). Porter and his men cut down pistols (mostly open top Colts) for concealment while acting as Brigham Young's bodyguards. I've seen pics of everything from a Baby Dragoon to a Walker (that one looks wierd) chopped just in front of the loading lever mounting point- with '60 Armies and '51 Navies being the most common- that were done in the time period.
OK Tamoa gun show today. Looked at it and handkled it, not bad, looked at asking price $219 not good. Only found one dealer with one in stock. May have been more but thats the only one I saw. Like the grips and overall look, just not his price. $150-60 probably would have bought it. Oh well, sure it will become more available soon.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
